This is a perfect example of an attempt to shoot down the concept of a Creator God, but imbuing him with certain attributes. Here you equate the concept of a Creator God with a talking duck, yet neither the ability to talk or duckiness is a necessary characteristic of a Creator God.
I’m not the one calling the “Creator” a “Creator God”.
Then I trust you don’t worship this god, in any sort of public gathering or privately. I trust you don’t act as if this god has any kind of moral guidance. In fact, if you followed the logic of your god, you wouldn’t be an atheist but you’d be functionally indistinguishable from one.
And I agree with Superfluous Parentheses - from where do you get god out of creator?
Um, no it doesn’t makes sense. Access to extra dimensions wouldn’t make someone any more omnipotent than we are.
The concept of this “God” that has no characteristics besides existing in a non-detectable way appears to exist solely for the purpose of serving as a defense in arguments like this one. As soon as the argument is over, the believers go right back to the God that has rituals that must be performed, enemies who must be destroyed and orders which must be obeyed.
This is the one I’ve been waiting for: The Great God of the Vague. She/He /It has no shape to find. She/He/It has no history to dig up. She/He/It has no attributes to disprove. She/He/It has no purpose to argue about. She/He/It has no rules to obey or paths to follow.
For religionists, the main positive is that The Great God of the Vague cannot be disproved.
For all that’s worth.
We’re in a thread discussing atheism, the flip side of which is theism. I used Creator God to take the connotation away from religion. Feel free to use Creator and Creator God interchangeably.
Oh, I get that–but I think the author is misconstruing what some theists say when they ask atheists to prove that there’s no God: I think the theists are implicitly asking atheists to prove that the atheistic conceptualization of the underpinnings of the universe is accurate. It might be better understood as saying, “Prove that we came about through a series of events that were naturalistic and primarily controlled through nonsentient forces.”
It’s still a god-of-the-gaps argument and not therefore a real challenge, but it’s certainly challenging atheists to buttress their beliefs.
Not if you’re going to use that as an argument for a god. Sorry. There’s no reason at all to think that whatever caused our universe (if there was a cause in the first place) was even sentient. How do you get to a “God”?
Actually, as I mentioned numerous times before, I practice no religion. But that is beside the point, Theism/Atheism is a philosophical position. When you get into the flavor of theism, then you’re having a religious discussion (no doubt philosophical, as well).
I am very far from an atheist, I assure you. I am convinced that there is a God, a Creator. Of course, I may be wrong, but in thinking about it, that’s where I come out. Strongly.
As far as you’re last paragraph, whoever created all this is certainly a God to me.
Are you kidding? Go read Flatland for a very stripped down version of the argument.
That’s not true. You want it that way because it’s easy to shoot holes in a religion and make it look foolish, but not in the concept of a Creator/Creator God.
Including if the creator is a scientifically advanced grad student, who has the ability to create universes in artificially created singularities with more or less randomly generated physical properties? Most are dead of course, but he got lucky with us. Whether he knows this is unclear.
He has the necessary shape: Creator. That’s only point. A Creator God might wear flowing robes, or a bear, or a hat, or ice skates, or he may be covered in marinara sauce. But he would necessarily have just two attributes: the ability to create the cosmos and the ability to exist without being caused.
Sorry if that makes it harder for you to shoot down the concept by shooting down any “flavoring” of this Creator.
God necessitates no cause for his own existence. He is the only thing that is causeless. all knowledge that we have sits on the foundation of cause and effect. And just to save you or whomever some typing. quantum mechanics is mute on cause. It looks at the location of particles and they can pop in and out of existence, but it does not speak to what causes these particles to do that or even if the action is caused or not.
That might very well be the case. which leads to the obvious question: who created the world the grad student lives in?
Easy: someone in the universe created by the grad-student, since time travels in a reverse direction in that created universe.
Illogical, sure–but no more illogical than the idea of first cause.
That is because your “Creator” has no flavor-as is, She/He/It isn’t worth ingesting. Three questions arise though, despite your valiant efforts to make the questioning of your Deity O’ Choice impossible:
- How did She/He/It acquire the ability to create the cosmos?
- How did She/He/It acquire the ability to exist without being caused?
- Why do you feel these questions aren’t worth pursuing?
The author said the following:
He wasn’t talking about theists “asking atheists to prove that the atheistic conceptualization of the underpinnings of the universe is accurate.”
It seems like you want the author to be talking about what you want to believe he was rather than just reading what he wrote. It’s true that theists often ask us to prove there are no gods and pretend that the onus is on us when they’re the ones making the claim and that is what he was talking about; he didn’t misconstrue anything. Our “religious jars” are empty. We’re not making extraordinary claims sans extraordinary evidence and have nothing to prove. That some or many of us do make naturalistic claims is irrelevant to the author’s piece. There are plenty of excellent answers to requests for naturalists to prove that those sort of beliefs are rational, but that’s a discussion for another thread.
“She”?!!! C’mon!
-
I do not know. I also do not know if it was acquired or part and parcel to being the Creator God. I also think it is irrelevant in discussing atheism/theism. The point is that there was a Creator. The theist position is simply that we were created, and the first cause argument is a strong indicator of that. The only other option is that we, the universe was not caused, meaning that it is/was eternal. But since everything in our existence, every scientific discovery is based on events being caused, I have to turtle back to a time when there was nothing and then it all began.
-
I don’t think the question makes sense. The act of acquiring implies a timeframe. And if one already exists in order to do the acquiring, then it is a moot point.
-
I think they might be, they’re just not helpful to the discussion. The question under analysis is Creator vs no Creator. In examining that it makes sense to me to look at the nature of our creation. Th nature of God, or this God, is immaterial, except for my two earlier stipulations. It also tempts us to anthropomorphosize God. That’s not very helpful.
Of the three terms used, this is the one that offends you?
Magellan01: I’m sorry, but I don’t believe you. I don’t think for a minute that the only attribute you assign to God is that it created the Universe. For one thing, you would not use the word God, with all it’s connotations if that were all you believed. Second, you would not use the anthropomorphic “he”.